The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 31 March 2016 to Question 31997, on employment: telephone services, if he will provide that data for financial years (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13 and (d) 2013-14.
Nick Boles
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-06-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many follow-up appointments for patients with a primary diagnosis of (a) age-related macular degeneration, (b) central retinal vein occlusion and (c) diabetic macular oedema were cancelled or postponed by the NHS in each of the last three years.
Alistair Burt
All follow-up appointments should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. The appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.
To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England’s guidance, “Recording and reporting referral to treatment waiting times for consultant-led elective care” is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return.
Hospital episode statistics contain details of all outpatient appointments at National Health Service hospitals in England and commissioned by the NHS from independent sector organisations in England. The recording of a primary diagnosis and postponed or cancelled appointments is not mandatory within the outpatient commissioning data set and there are no plans to make it so.
Data is not, therefore, available on the number of cancelled or postponed follow up appointments for patients with age-related macular degeneration, central retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular oedema.
No assessment has been made of the effect of hospital-initiated postponement or cancellation of ophthalmology follow-up appointments on patients’ sight. However, officials have met with the Clinical Council for Eye Health Commissioning and are considering their concerns.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-10-07.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps have been taken to assess the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010 in improving web accessibility for disabled people.
Matt Hancock
We are committed to increasing digital inclusion for all, and are taking steps to increase web accessibility for disabled people. The Government has published guidance on Gov.UK on making digital services accessible for Government departments, local authorities and anyone else who wants to prepare accessible communications.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2015-10-27.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate his Department has made of the number of assured shorthold tenancies registered with each of the three tenancy deposit schemes; whether each deposit is held under (a) a custodial and (b) an insurance scheme; and how many assured shorthold tenancies there were in England and Wales in each year since each scheme’s establishment.
Brandon Lewis
Under tenancy deposit protection legislation introduced in the Housing Act 2004, all landlords who let out property on an assured shorthold tenancy are required to protect their tenants’ deposits in one of the three Government-approved deposit protection schemes.
Details of the number of deposits protected under each scheme as at March 2015 are set out below:
Custodial scheme: Deposit Protection Service: 1,170,564
Insurance Schemes:
Tenancy Deposit Scheme: 1,135,769
Deposit Protection Service: 20,944
MyDeposits: 738,853
Whilst the Government has authorised three private companies to provide tenancy deposit protection schemes, we do not have a day-to-day role in the running of the schemes, however, we do maintain an oversight responsibility, and the Department holds quarterly monitoring meetings with scheme providers at which any performance issues can be discussed. Over the period that the schemes have been in operation, they have performed at a consistently high level. We have not issued guidance for the schemes who all engage the services of dispute resolution professionals. However, the majority of disputes are resolved in 28 days, which is the performance target set by the Government.
The number of adjudications per year for each scheme is set out in the attached table, including the percentage of adjudications awarded to tenants and landlords.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2015-12-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many individuals applying for leave to stay in the UK who successfully appealed against a rejection from UK Visas and Immigration through the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) have not yet been issued with the right to stay in the UK.
James Brokenshire
The Home Office considers applications on their own merits and takes great care to get decisions right first time, recognising the difficulty that errors can cause legitimate applicants. Where applicants are granted leave to remain the UK, we take all reasonable steps to issue their visas accordingly. The requested information cannot be accurately defined on our internal systems. To provide this information a manual reconciliation of existing work in progress and appeals implementations would be required. Manual reconciliation of individual cases would incur a disproportionate cost.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2015-12-17.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Answers of 6 May 2014 to Question 197359, 12 September 2014 to Questions 205613 and 218085, and pursuant to the Answer of 26 November 2015 to Question 16851, (a) under what circumstances HM Revenue and Customs identify non-compliance with minimum wage enforcement without (i) recovering arrears in unpaid wages from workers and (ii) issuing penalties to employers, (b) what mechanisms are in place to ensure that an employer for whom non-compliance has been identified has paid back minimum wage arrears without the need for a penalty to be issued or fine to be imposed, (c) how much money in unpaid wages was identified following HM Revenue and Customs investigations in each year since 2009-10 and (d) how many employers agreed to pay all arrears following a finding on non-compliance before a penalty was issued in each year since 2009-10.
Mr David Gauke
The Government is determined that everyone who is entitled to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) receives it. Anyone who feels they have been underpaid NMW should contact the confidential Acas helpline on 0300 123 1100. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) review all complaints that are referred to them. Non-compliant employers are issued with a Notice of Underpayment (NOU) detailing the arrears they owe workers and the penalty due. The employer will pay the arrears directly to the worker and the penalty to the Government. HMRC takes steps to ensure that workers receive the arrears to which they are entitled; I refer the honourable member to the answer provided at UIN 211605 on the action taken by HMRC where arrears are identified. A penalty will be issued on the NOU except in exceptional circumstances. To encourage voluntary compliance, where an employer has identified non-compliance outside of an HMRC investigation and notified of their intention to self-correct and pay arrears, for example through HMRC’s NMW Campaign in the hair and beauty sector, HMRC will not impose a penalty. For information on arrears identified, I refer the honourable member back to the answer provided at UIN 16851.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-08.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 17 December 2015 to Question 19827, which authority is overseeing the implementation of NICE Quality Standards; and what steps are being taken to (a) monitor progress in developing Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) services against, (b) implement and (c) promote NICE Quality Standard Q581 on IBD.
Jane Ellison
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 places a duty on NHS England to have regard to quality standards, published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Quality standards are important in setting out to patients, the public, commissioners and providers what a high quality service should look like in a particular area of care.
NHS England would expect providers and commissioners to take into account NICE quality standards, including for inflammatory bowel disease, in designing services locally. However, the quality standards do not provide a comprehensive service specification and are not mandatory.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-13.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his Answer of 18 December 2015 to Question 19717, which were the 28 communities in Syria supported by the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund.
Mr Tobias Ellwood
The Conflict Stability And Security Fund is supporting communities in opposition held areas located in the north west and south west of Syria. A specific list of these communities is not published for reasons of security (it could put civilians in those areas at risk). More information on the work being taken forward can be found at http://www.project-tamkeen.org/category/news-from-the-programme/
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-02.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many appeals were heard by the Education Funding Agency and Local Government Ombudsman in relation to admissions decisions made by (a) academies, (b) academies which were previously maintained schools and (c) free schools in each year since 2009-10; how many such appeals were upheld; which schools were subject to those appeals; and what proportion of academies and free schools those schools represent.
Edward Timpson
Parents have the right to complain to an admission authority regarding its decision to refuse admission of a child. The admission authority must establish an independent appeals panel to hear the complaint. On behalf of the Secretary of State, the Education Funding Agency (EFA) will investigate complaints about the appeals process operated by independent appeal panels for academies and free schools.
The table below provides information on admission appeals complaints assessed as being in scope for investigation by EFA since April 2012, when it was established. EFA has no record of admission appeal complaints in the last four financial years from any Civil Society Organisations.
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) handles the appeals process operated in respect of maintained schools. The Department does not hold information on the number of admission appeals complaints heard by the LGO. The LGO should hold this information.
|
Financial year 2012-13 |
Financial year 2013-14 |
Financial year 2014-15 |
2015-16 Current financial year to date |
|
|
PQ25402 (A) Total number of admission appeal complaints about academies investigated by EFA |
127 |
163 |
144 |
203 |
|
PQ25402 (B) Total number of admission appeal complaints about academies which were previously maintained schools investigated by EFA |
115 |
150 |
130 |
193 |
|
PQ25402 (C) Total number of admission appeal complaints about free schools investigated by EFA |
Not recorded centrally for this financial year |
4 |
8 |
4 |
|
Total number of admission appeal complaints fully upheld by EFA |
15 |
13 |
26 |
15 |
|
Name of schools where EFA has investigated an admission appeal complaint subject to appeals |
See attachment |
See attachment |
See attachment |
See attachment |
|
Total appeals complaints investigated, as a proportion of open academies and free schools |
5% (of 2,796) |
4% (of 3,874) |
3% (of 4,881) |
4% (of 5,447) |
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-09.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 9 February 2016 to Question 25400, which academies and free schools made those applications to her Department to vary admissions requirements.
Edward Timpson
Pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2016 to Question 25400, one academy and two free schools have made applications to the Department to vary admissions requirements, these are as follows:
Academy
The Victory Academy (Thinking Schools Academy Trust) – not approved.
Free Schools
Nishkam School West London (Nishkam School Trust) – approved.
Cobham Free School – approved.